Talk:Jens Stoltenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Norway (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject NATO (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of NATO on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Movie: Oljeberget[edit]

Would anyone care to add that? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Political background[edit]

Some information on his political standpoint and policies he has supported would make this a fuller article. Marking as a stub. Mr. Jones 09:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism and media attention[edit]

This article DID contain serious flaws. Stoltenberg haver never been in jail for pedophily!

This article made the front page in one of Norway's biggest papers, Dagbladet, when it seemed to contain serious flaws, like stating that Norway's prime minister has done time for pedophily... [1]

Has this revision been deleted from the history? I could not find it. The article really scandalizes the edit, trying to get comments from Stoltenberg himself, from the IT admin responsible for the IP address used (it was allegedly the work of school kids), and also an apology from a spokesperson from the Norwegian Wikipedia. I wonder how long the allegations were in the article? As far as I understood, the vandalism was quite poorly worded ("pedophilia" is not something you get put in jail for, child molestation is), so I can't imagine anyone would take it seriously. Dagbladet often links to Wikipedia articles, and I've never seen them complain about it like this before, but hey, they're tabloid, and any scandal will do. Haakon 09:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
And yes, it got national television (NRK). -- Drange
Try checking the first few edits in the history, it's at the very bottom of the page in one of them. -- Charm Quark?? 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC) -- Charm Quark?? 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

At the end, the article states: "He is generally considered a good guy". Is this statement suitable for a biographical article in Wikipedia? Hardly neutral point of view... I think I'll remove it. Prytz 07:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The revision was out for less than 24 hours. VG, which is even more of a tabloid than Dagbladet, "scandalized" it, saying that "untill recently, readers could read about Stoltenberg being a convicted paedophiliac…" (my emboldment). This is totally wrong. Stupid newspaper. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 09:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Rather than "less than 24 hours" I would say "more than 22 hours", which is very bad. Or perhaps I shouldn't complain since he was not on my watch list... Now, most of the Norwegian politicians have been added to my list. --Eddi (Talk) 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Stupid indeed. They claim the article is now "removed", and that "if an article is vandalized often, the most objective version is chosen and the article is then locked for further editing". Haakon 09:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have watchlisted this article, it seems to be under attack from quite many now, and I fear that the newspaper attention might encourage some copycat vandalism. :-( Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A lot of vandalism going on at this page. Should we request it for page protection? Bogfjellmo 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, this article is getting so much attention that we are reverting the vandalism quite quickly, so a page protection is probably not in order just yet. But I noticed that a vandalism to Kjell Magne Bondevik was left unnoticed for more than an hour, so I have watchlisted that one as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, it has been hit by another onslaught of vandalism, so I have protected it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
How long will it stay protected? Many have this article in our watchlists, which we reload compulsively. Any vandalism is sure to be shortlived. Haakon 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point, I think the vandalism to this article will slow down now as well, I'm lifting the protection now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


For the record, the pedophilia line was added by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at 11:47, 9 November 2005, [2] and removed at 10:16, 10 November 2005 [3], with the other vandalism by that IP removed shortly after. The IP also vandalised Red-Green Coalition (Norway) [4], which was removed in about 1.5hrs [5] - better than the 22.5hrs it took here. I've also watchlisted the article. Rd232 talk 10:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

ha, I miscounted the time it was up (someone just corrected it). In my defence, I was distracted because I was supposed to be working... Rd232 talk 19:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Some anonymous person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) posted an apology on the discussion page for the article in norwegian WP. no:Diskusjon:Jens Stoltenberg. --ZorroIII 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how credible the apology is from a completely different address. --Eddi (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not think he plays computergames from his office

Vandalism recounted[edit]

The bolded entries are those that seem a bit more sinister or hateful. Entries marked with an asterisk (*) aren't really vandalism but inappropriate entries such as unsourced claims and opinions. __meco (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


No sources are given in the article, and so the anon's addition of {{unsourced}} is quite valid. Since this has become such a disputed article, I suggest we add a section with a list of sources, and all non-trivial information should refer to at least one source. --Eddi (Talk) 15:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources are always good, but the anon's addition of {{unsourced}} was plainly designed solely to avoid rapid reversion of an edit that had an edit summary abusing an editor. I therefore reverted it anyway, but have no objection to adding the tag in principle. Rd232 talk 17:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Monarch info[edit]

Why is there monarch info in his infobox? __meco (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ankylosing spondylitis[edit]

Information about Stoltenberg's suffering a mild form of Ankylosing spondylitis[6] has previously been removed. I suggest this item is notable for inclusion in the article. __meco (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bilderberg meeting not exceptionally notable[edit]

I'm sure Mr. Stoltenberg attends many international meetings with many organizations. This particular meeting is not in itself very notable or unusual. I know that these meetings are of interest to conpiracy theorist, but this page ought not to favor that particular point of view. Paxuniv (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AUF membership scandal[edit]

Should there be some mention of the AUF membership scandal in this article? Perhaps a link in the See also section? __meco (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rumours about sexuality causing media attention[edit]

A frequent theme of this article's plethora of vandalisms notwithstanding, the topic of Jens Stoltenberg's sexuality has also surfaced in Norwegian mainstream media if my recall serves me correctly. I have only a very vague time reference, it may be as far back as the 1980s, but I remember having listened to a live phone interview on what I believe was NRK Østlandssendingen were the journalist brought up circulating rumours that Stoltenberg was gay. I don't remember his response except that I found it quite frantic and overreacting. If others have some recollection of this episode or the media context perhaps an accurate time frame can facilitate recovering any references. The rationale for having the article mention such an issue would obviously be the susceptibility to undue influences which a person in high office would suffer if he or she were having personal secrets that they feared would come to public attention. __meco (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. This user should be banned for personal harassment. Flums (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What I heard is not true? You mean to state that I am making up this in order to smear Jens Stoltenberg? May I ask you how you can assert such a position? __meco (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have heard nothing whatsoever about this. If it's so vague that you cannot produce a reference it should not be in the article, and especially not in a living person's biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Noone has suggested that. Obviously, the reason I present this is an attempt to arouse the recollection of others who could elaborate on the my meager memories. As I see it, the challenge is primarily to center in on a date. Then the sources would be more easily found. __meco (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Why should his sexuality be mentioned, this is not a gossip magazine okay...... --This Feels Right (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it right that Jens Stoltenberg lived in a house with his gay friend John G. in a house for the two on Holmennkollåsen? That he has also lived in Farsund with a man for 4 years, while enjoying rowing outside Borhaug in Farsund? That he had affiliations with the "bi-sexual" Hapnes'es, two doctors, for several years...? (Note on Fædrelandsvennen in Jens having lacheys, i.e., Hapnes.) Good? (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

Seeing how this article is currently linked from the Main Page, it's in a horribly poor state. The AUF membership scandal, which was a minor episode in Stoltenberg's political career, takes up half the article, in clear violation of WP:UNDUE. His first cabinet is covered, but this section is almost entirely about the transfer of power. His second cabinet is hardly covered at all. I'll put up an "undue" tag, though perhaps it's better to wait until it's off the Main Page. Lampman (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this could be worked on by expanding the other sections, rather than removing that one? I notice that political scandals and criticism often receive significant attention, for example in the case of Mette Hanekamhaug. (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Maybe mention somewhere that he uses (used?) the nick Steklov when playing games, and that the reason is that KGB once used that as a code name for him? I'm not familiar with the rules regarding editing the article, so I add the information here instead. :)


Disputed section about hit and run incident[edit]

The section about Stoltenberg crashing with a parked car and then leaving the scene without giving any notice to the owner of the damaged car, was removed by EPadmirateur with the following explanation: " rv per WP:UNDUE: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.)" The information was originally entered into the article by (talk · contribs · WHOIS) without any references, then promptly removed for that reason, then readded and re-written by me to remove some inaccuracies/hyperbole after I had dug up a reliable source for the incident.

I suggest that information about criminal and unethical behavior by a top-level politician is not a trivial matter and that it is much more relevant to the biography of such an individual than in the case of for instance a movie actor. These are people whose entire careers and activities hinge on the trust given to them by the voting population. When they show to behave reprehensibly, even in a non-political context, and when that has been discussed prominently in mainstream media, we would simply be amiss in doing our job of writing an encyclopedia if we did not allow such information to come to the surface. I am therefore readding this section, adding additional sources to the story.

I should also address the use of WP:UNDUE to support the removal of this text because that is really quite a stretch. In fact, the quote provided by EPadmirateur is the only segment of text in the section Due and undue weight of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy page which could at all be invoked to address the current issue, as all the rest of the discussion there is focussed on to what extent a minority opinion contra the majority opinion is to be presented in an article about a topic. And the quote in no way supports removal or suppression of any information. All it does is point out that certain angles may be "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Should we then also remove the information about his sister being a recovering heroin addict? Or that he has admitted to having smoked cannabis? Or that he has two children? Or, perhaps not the last since that couldn't be seen to paint Stoltenberg in a not so flattering light...

I think it is fine that editors keep a vigilant eye out against slander, rumour-mongering and BLP violations, but I do not think it is fine when we take on the role as apologetics and spin doctors. That can sometimes, at least for some, prove to be a fine line to thread. And I'm not reproaching EPadmirateur here, but I am insisting that this incident is noteworthy in the biographical article about the highest elected public servant of a country. __meco (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful photograph[edit]

This photograph of an adolescent Jens Stoltenberg (I assume it's authentic) has been attempted added to the article on at least a couple of occasions. I think it is quite charming/amusing. It's unlikely that it has the right licensing for our use, and some would likely object to its inclusion in any case, but I would be amicably inclined towards having it in the article if the rights could be sorted out properly. __meco (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Stone throwing incident[edit]

I'd appreciate if others who read Norwegian and have access could check out the reference for this and make comment on the reliability on this source and the author specifically. Stoltenberg must have been 13 or 14 years old at the time, so it's more piquant than discrediting, I suppose, but nevertheless. __meco (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is this vandalism?[edit]

I have added some new images. That's all. Why is this vandalism?? Even though you are an administrator/moderator, you have no such rights. Please explain why you deleted it. You are the one who destroys this article by deleting other peoples edits. Shame on you! --HAAVE 11:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The images had low encyclopedic value and did not fit inside the article. Full stop. --Eisfbnore talk 12:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The pictures posted recently by HAAVE are perfectly valid for an encyclopedia. It appears that your alternative choices of pictures have a particular point of view that seem to violate WP:BLP by putting Stoltenberg in a deliberately negative light. Would you care to justify your choices of pictures for this article? And also why these other choices are not encyclopedic? In the meantime, I suggest that you stop edit warring about this. Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Before you start tossing accusations around about my POV and similar, I would like you to please tell what is so great about these close-up pictures. --Eisfbnore ðç 07:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Another image which could be used is File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg, which is a featured image on Commons, and has even been picture of the day there. Irrespective of the quality of the images, the captions for some of the removed images were quite problematic: this is the English language Wikipedia, please do not use terms like "statsministeren" and "statsråder" as they are Norwegian and have English equivalents. Arsenikk (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Eisfbnore, the pictures that HAAVE added are better because they show Stoltenberg in a positive or neutral light. The File:Jens Stoltenberg of Norway.jpg is much better than the current one in the lead, File:Prime Minister Stoltenberg Jens.jpg, because Stoltenberg is not frowning. In addition, there is no background clutter of people as if the picture is just a snapshot. What is your problem with HAAVE's suggestion?

I agree with Arsenikk that File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg is better still and should be the photo in the lead. (I also agree that the captions to the pictures should be in English, which is easy to fix.) Can we first agree on the photo for the lead? My vote is for File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg, second choice is File:Jens Stoltenberg of Norway.jpg. Thanks, --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed there is also this one File:Jens Stoltenberg red background.jpg which is also acceptable and preferable to the current photo in the lead. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, then let's try File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg. What objections do you have to this one? --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • To answer the question in the heading, "Why is this vandalism?", the answer is it is not vandalism, and should not have been termed in that way. None of the images are degrading, nor egregiously biased, and could most certainly used in good faith. Disagreement over which images to use are not vandalism, and people should not use that term lightly. Concerning the main image for the infobox, I have no strong concerns about any of the suggested images. Frowning might make a person look bitter or sour (bad) or concerned and serious (good), but in neither case is this a serious breach of NPOV policy. Regarding the image File:Liv Jens Kristin.jpg, I find that the image has encyclopedic value because it shows the three party leaders of the Red-Green coalition which is crucial to Stoltenberg's current cabinet (but the caption was suboptimal, per Arsenikk). If we were to emphasize history over the contemporary, I would prefer an image with Jens Stoltenberg, Kristin Halvorsen, and Åslaug Haga, since Haga was the SP leader when the coalition was first formed (which was a rather historic event as these parties had never been together in such a coalition before). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If it's not vandalism, then it's at least disruptive to add close-up, substandard pictures to the infobox like this one and this one ([7][8]). However, File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg is certainly an appropriate infobox picture, so I think we have reached consensus. :) --Eisfbnore talk 18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Saab 93[edit]

Was the car which Stoltenberg drove at his parking incident really a Saab 93? I think that it was more likely a Saab 9- (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but I suppose we can only go with what the sources say. __meco (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A reference has been added (which is a copy of the next reference in the text): "took off in his car, a Saab 9-3[1] leased to "
  1. ^ Hultgreen, Gunnar (December 8, 2001). "Jens varslet ikke eieren" [Jens didn't notify the owner]. Dagbladet. p. 6. Archived from the original on November 20, 2010. Retrieved November 20, 2010. 
-- (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to explain this correctly now I believe. __meco (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Anonymous" taxi driver story[edit]

Please include the story about the passengers being paid. The article as of today implies that the taxi story was an honest effort by Mr.Stoltenberg to listen to "the people's true meanings", citation by BBC news. Some days later it was broadcasted - also by BBC news - that the passengers were paid actors, and the story obiously lost its former credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Nope: none of them we "paid actors", AFAIK, they were ordinary passengers, but some had been asked in advance if they wanted to participate in a movie, and to appear at a certain place at a certain time to be picked up by a taxi. And were compensated for that. (The producers of the movie said it was because they did not want Stoltenberg to waste a day cruising around Oslo, and risk not getting any passengers.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Secretary General designate[edit]

Mr. Stoltenberg has been confirmed as the Secretary General designate of NATO. He will take office on 1 October 2014. Someone should write a little about this. (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Annexing A Territory.[edit]

"brutal reminder of the necessity of NATO," stating that Russia's actions in Ukraine was "the first time since the Second World War that a country has annexed a territory belonging to another country."[47]

Apparently this guy never heard of the Golan Heights. (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"27th Prime Minister"[edit]

Describing him as the "27th Prime Minister" and thus only counting prime ministers since 1905 is very ahistorical indeed and factually quite wrong. In addition to the fact that Norway had a number of prime ministers with today's title statsminister (state minister) prior to 1905 and which are regarded as the identical office, there is also the question of how heads of government with other titles than statsminister should be taken into account. And anyway, in Norway prime ministers are not counted at all. This number 27 is hence a form of original research, and not something used by Norwegian sources. Bjerrebæk (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Everyking (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Who represents the views of the Jewish Community in Norway?[edit]

<edit: this was moved from User talk:Bjerrebæk: trying to have the debate in one place. >

Anne Sender, as the elected spokesperson for Det mosaiske trossamfunn is RS for the views of the Jews in Norway, in a way JPost/Gerstenfeld will never be. And Gerstenfeld made it very clear, in a meeting with Jews in Norway that he does not care about them. (see here), Gerstenfeld said: "I couldnt care less about the Jewish Community in Norway, all I care about is to get your Jens, Jonas and Kristin off the back of my Prime Minister". Jens, Jonas and Kristin are Jens Stoltenberg, Jonas Gahr Støre and Kristin Halvorsen. And in this attempt to "get your Jens, Jonas and Kristin off the back of my Prime Minister" he is (mis)-using the Jews of Norway. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content on Stoltenberg and Israel[edit]

In this version, the first paragraph of Israel's section covers Stoltenberg's critical views Israel, and the second one covers some of the media's perception of him regarding those views he holds. But apparently, two users want only his criticism of Israel to be seen and think it's of due weight, but remove the second part which I edited, claiming it is "WP:UNDUE". I'd appreciate if an objective editor could take a look at this please and help decide on a balanced version. Yambaram (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph started very badly saying "During Stoltenberg's presidency, Norway’s government under his Labor Party was criticized for being "soft on Palestinian terrorism, and has even promoted it indirectly."" This can not be presented in such a general way, but would have to be attributed to the source: Manfred Gerstenfeld. I am inclined to think that his opinion per itself is not notable enough to merit inclusion. So I will lean against inclusion of this, unless you find more sources saying something similar. Also, I doubt the last sentence/source is notable. There again is Gerstenfeld, along with Hanne Nabintu Herland who is controversial in Norway and a rabbi from the Chabad Lubavitch movement in Norway, which is very small and not representative of Norwegian Jews. The statement from ADL may be more notable; but mainly if you find more sources with the same criticism. Presenting criticism from smaller groups in a generalized may be a BLP violation. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record: I am not against Iseliljas removal here. I attributed it as a former editor had claimed it was "definitely not a POV" Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I personally do not understand the issue here. The comment have been cited by JPost, and is no way a POV. If people are in denial in what he said, than keep in mind that JPost is first of all an RS. I would have been of different view if a user will cite a white supremacist ref, but this is not it. This is 100% RS which being removed for an unknown reason. The other refs were suspicious on my part, in that, even though they are RS as well they didn't mention a whole lot on the PM anti-semi comment. JPost however clearly illustrated it, therefore it should be included. If people believe its in a wrong section we as Wikipedians can always create criticism section just like some folks did with Vladimir Putin. Every government old or new have fair share of criticism, weather it adds undue weight on a subject or not, its a different story. I for one, am in support of inclusion of criticism section. We can't deny facts and JPost comment is one of them.--Mishae (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Plus, what do you all think about this and this source?--Mishae (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This last link shows exactly why Gerstenfeld cannot be considered anything but a highly POV voice: he refers to a former working draft (for The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) which defined all criticism of Israeli policies as "anti-semitism", thereby of course "increasing" anti-semitism many times. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights later rejected the draft, but some people (like Gerstenfeld) try to portray it as if it is the "common definition"" of anti-semitism. Which it never has been. By "his definition", everyone who has ever criticised Israeli policies becomes at least a "part-time" "anti-semite". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. You "semi" convinced me on the second ref that I posted, but have you read the previous ref that I provide it? If so, can we use two JPost refs in this article, and if not can we use at least the first of my refs for something, like it have something on Jens Stoltenberg and Gaza?--Mishae (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Both the Jpost articles I have seen [9][10] are by the same Gerstenfeld, and are listed as his "comment" or "opinion". Typically, both articles mentions the Utøya attack, like this: "The AUF came into the international limelight when criminal Anders Breivik killed 69 youngsters at its summer camp on the island of Utoya in 2011. One side effect of the huge media attention was that it became widely known how children of 14 years and older were indoctrinated there to hate Israel."
Seriously?! Talking about "blaming the (dead) victims". What Gerstenfeld *never* mentions is that the terrorist who killed these children was (is?) a strong supporter of Israel. Seriously. We do not have to spread this garbage. Also: the Jpost is simply even at the best of times not a RS for Norwegian matters. It has not been since it claimed that the then Minister of Finance, Kristin Halvorsen, participated in a demonstration against Israel shouting "Death to the Jews!" This was of course false, and caused a minor diplomatic case between the two nations. Jpost removed the offending article from the net, but never apologised. Any newspaper which is so ill informed about Norway that they think a politician could survive (politically) for two minutes in Norway after shouting "Death to the Jews!" is simply not a RS for Norwegian affairs. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If the terrorist killed so many Jews despite being on their side (as you point out), why then the media back in 2011 said that he was a part of white supremacist group? And where is your proof that all what Kristin Halvorsen said is false? Give me a link please. Saying that such and such site said this and this is baseless. Another question, are you suggesting that Wikipedia should use Norwegian sources for Norwegian articles while JPost will be strictly for Israeli-Palestinian conflicts? If so, it will lead to POV. Are you also denying that Israel National News, Haaretz and YNet are RS as well, simply because they are Israeli? Mind you, JPost is used on various articles, so it is an RS because otherwise it would have been blacklisted and that would have been the end of that story.--Mishae (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I do not know how many Jews (if any) the terrorist killed, he killed youths from the Labour Party. But Gerstenfeld proceeds to "use" him in his argumentation, which I find completely tasteless. (And that Breivik was pro-Israel was clear from day 1, from his "manifesto". He wasn´t "white supremacist"; he was and anti-islamist. Not the same thing). As for Jpost reporting falsely, read this, (where the Jewish holocaust survivor Imre Hercz said he was totally misquoted by Jpost), and this: Hertz critisized Gerstenfeld and claim Gerstenfeld has a "propaganda war" against Norway. As for removing the article is here. The leaders of the Jewish community in Norway, including the leader of the synagogue in Oslo and Michael Melchior have also objected to the articles in Jpost, see here. In short: the elected spokespersons for Jews living in Norway does not recognise the "wave of anti-semitism in Norway" which apparently Jerusalem Post/Gerstenfeld finds....And Gerstenfeld has apparently been once to Norway. Oh, and besides falsely quoting Imre Hercz, Jpost also uses a source named "David Weiss" in Norway. Except there are no person with that name registered living in Norway (according to the tax register: all adults who lives in Norway are registered there).
How do I know that Kristin Halvorsen did not say it? Well, beside the fact that doing such a thing would be an instant political suicide for any politician in Scandinavia; as Minister of Finance one can hardly utter one word in public without several reporters listening... and if anyone had heard her say or shout such a thing the journalists would get the biggest scoop of the year: in short; it would have been published.
In summary, when the elected spokespersons for the Jews in Norway does not agree with the "propaganda war" against Norway by Gerstenfeld/Jpost, it really does not belong in any wp article about Norway/Norwegians. Fringe view and all that. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, that sounds believable. Sorry if I misquoted you regarding the Jews. You see, when the attack happened, CNN, not JPost, said that he was a white supremacist. The reason why they said that was because on the photo he was blond with blue eyes (Hitler's version of perfect race). I will quote CNN: "This is the first massacre in Norway since World War II". Now, the report that I am quoting is maybe 3 years old, but it happened on the first day of massacre, because headline read: "Scores are dead in Norway shooting". On another question, if he wasn't killing Jews, then why did PM Jens Stoltenberg began to apologizing to Holocaust survivors on January 27, 2012? (that's like half a year after the attacks)--Mishae (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Stoltenberg apologizing to Holocaust survivors is because of the Holocaust, of course. Every PM of Norway has done the same since WW II, (or at least for as long as I can remember): About half of the Jews of Norway perished in the Holocaust, when Norway was under Nazi occupation, 1940-45. Huldra (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Huldra's refusal to allow using Gerstenfeld's article as a source is based on his/her own long research about him. Even if he's not a legitimate source, the Jerusalem post is by all means a RS, and I have found a few other articles there instead. You saying "We do not have to spread this garbage" is an example of what I mean: What you consider to be garbage may be seen as a great piece by someone else. Another example is where you, Huldra, said "But Gerstenfeld proceeds to "use" him in his argumentation, which I find completely tasteless." That's the problem, you find it so, but Wikipedia's guidelines do not necessarily "find it completely tasteless". Because if every editor were to judge whether a source is "garbage"/"tasteless" or not, we would be left with blank articles. You have not addressed the reliable ADL (or JNS) source, which Iselilja acknowledged is notable. I agree with Mishae, and think if anyone wants to create a new reception/criticism section in the article instead, then go ahead. I'll now add the revised information. Yambaram (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read again what Gerstenfeld writes about the killed children at Utøya: to me it sounds dangerously close to justifying the killings. And that is completely tasteless, to put it extremely diplomatically. There is no excuse for killing unarmed children. Ever. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding a large POV-worded section sourced to far-right extremist sources in this article is completely unacceptable. Frontpage Magazine is an extremist, Islamophobic publication (published by an organization widely regarded, even in the US, as a hate group) and not a valid source. Neither is Gerstenfeld or other representatives of the extreme right[11]. Both NPOV, UNDUE and BLP applies to this high profile article on the NATO Secretary-General designate, and inappropriate content will be removed. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I have brought this discussion to the BLP Noticeboard so comments can be posted there also. Then it will be seen by more people, and hopefully some of them will provide their opinion. Iselilja (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Jerusalem Post, Norway's leading newspaper of record Aftenposten specifically states that "it's a long time ago one could find reliable information in the Jerusalem Post" and that it is now owned by the far right.[12] In any event, it's not regarded as a reliable source on events in Norway, regardless of how it is perceived in Israel. Its claims in this particular case have been thoroughly discredited and proven to be fabrications, e.g. its non-existent source "David Weiss" who is as real as Stephen Glass' "JUKT Micronics". Its claims are also regarded, including by the Norwegian Jewish community, as very extreme and representative of the far right fringe. Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We now have a problem with a user who declares himself to be "pro-Russian" on his user page adding highly negative material in a POV and totally unencyclopedic tone to the biography of the new NATO Secretary-General, sourced to far right fringe sources, including the publication of a known American hate group which is known as the inspiration of Anders Behring Breivik (the same org. that is publishing the notorious racist website Jihad Watch) [13], and despite being told repeatedly by multiple editors that the tone of his proposed contribution as well as the sources are inappropriate for this article. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't get it, what's my pro-Russia thing have to do with the current article? In fact, I am completely neutral to both Ukraine, Russia, USA, what ever. It also said on my user page that "this user is pro-Ukraine", so that I wont offend our Ukrainian neighbors. O' and I don't like Obama, Putin or Turchanov respectively. As far, as far right groups go, Wikipedia sometimes uses Fox News, that's a far right news network, don't you think?--Mishae (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not advocate using Fox News as a source in this article. I think Fox News is a tabloid and one-sided source of poor quality. But it is not as extreme as Frontpage Magazine, which is almost universally regarded as a racist publication. Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Fox News is tabloid? Wondering if you know what Fox News is? To me its a news channel not a newspaper. By using the word tabloid I assuming you are talking of newspaper publication. Another question, so what about CNN and BBC, they are widely used on world politics related articles?--Mishae (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean newspaper production. Tabloid is also an adjective meaning "luridly or vulgarly sensational."[14] I don't think the BBC or the CNN are relevant comparisons. Frontpage Magazine is an extremist and fringe source as widely acknowledged, BBC and CNN are not. Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading the above comments, here's what I have to say. We can replace the Jpost source with the official Anti Defamation League website, detailing the story. Bjerrebæk, Jpost may seem "extreme, far right" in your opinion, so don't state this as a fact because that's unacceptable. Your baseless claim that FrontPage Magazine is "almost universally regarded as a racist publication" simply shows your lack of NPOV as you yourself turned this fringe view about FrontPage Magazine into an official one, and you then accused another user of being "pro-Russian", Mishae. There is nothing wrong with being pro-your country, some of your above arguments are just ridiculous. Given the number of reliable sources criticizing Stolenberg, there's no doubt that some of this criticism is of due weight, however I do think it could possibly be shortened and summarized. For the Jpost or NJF's articles writers' opinion about Stoltenberg, which claim he's antisemitic/anti-Israel, we can later determine how significant these editorial opinions are. But let's put these opinions aside for now, because there are notable reports about events relating to the subject that should be given a mention. These include the ADL's official complaint about Stoltenberg's bias; a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to Stoltenberg (see the Ynet article here), and apparently there are a few more. As the guidelines say, Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject, which is exactly I attempt to do but a few users here just don't want to give it a change. If specific criticism of Stoltenbberg written by some of Israel's top newspapers is not given the minimal mention in the article, then no critical information about him will even make it into this article. This discussion is taking place here as well, so I suggest we make this one here the only place to discuss it. With regards to that discussion on the noticeboard, I want to say to Elaqueate that these notable sources do not have to represent a mainstream view - we can use relevant information from them and then give them the appropriate attribution. And why are you saying Stoltenberg was called an anti-Semite because he said he "supported Palestine"? This is not what he was condemned for and your claim is very misleading. There's absolutely no justified reason not to include the ADL or Simon Wiesenthal Center sources, which received more than enough news coverage. Maybe a broader criticism section will be needed as Mishae says, I don't mind.

Here's the proposed paragraph. Please edit and work on it here until we reach a consensus we can agree upon. We can either remove all info presented here from the article, or we can give a fair weight to both sides. Censorship isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Regards Yambaram (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, the references are not visible...

What is seen here are the usual accusations of antisemitism against politicians/commentators who criticize Israeli politics.
All these critics can be considered as a 'primary source' (frontpage, ADL,JNS) and unless backed by several 'secondary sources', they should not be mentionned per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.
Pluto2012 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This is really becoming hilarious. How wonderful to edit with such insightful editors; Breivik was killing Jews at Utøya, and now the allegation that Stoltenberg did not inform the owner of a car that he had scratched it, is cited as reference for the sentence: "Stoltenberg has fiercely criticized Israel over its violations of international law in the Palestinian Territories as well as in international waters, such as the Gaza flotilla raid".
How the heck am I supposed to take you guys seriously? Cheerful cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, The references are changed now. At the time I made the above comment, the sentence "Stoltenberg has fiercely criticized Israel over its violations of international law in the Palestinian Territories as well as in international waters, such as the Gaza flotilla raid" was sourced to this:[1]

Stoltenberg and Israel/the Jews[edit]

Stoltenberg has criticized Israel over its violations of international law in the Palestinian Territories as well as in international waters, such as the Gaza flotilla raid.[2] In 2006, Stoltenberg stated that "Norway condemns Israel's actions against Palestinians. Such collective punishment is totally unacceptable."[3] Stoltenberg praised doctors Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse for their humanitarian work in the Gaza Strip during the Gaza War, stating that "all of Norway" was behind them.[4] Stoltenberg was also criticized for his views and actions regarding Israel and the Jewish people on mulitple occasions. In 2006, a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center was appended and mentioned extreme negative actions of inter alia Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.[5] In 2010, US senator Sam Brownback complained about a list of anti-Semitic acts by the Norwegian government, and for Norway's contact with Hamas under the Stoltenberg cabinet.[6] Similarly, Stoltenberg was criticized for his "failure to condemn anti-Israel slogans in his country" by Jpost.[7] In 2012, the Anti-Defamation League wrote a letter to him, saying that it was disturbed by his decision to participate in an anti-Israel event and was dismayed he had not denounced the slogans which called for a boycott of Israel and called it an apartheid state.[8][9] At the end of Stoltenberg's second term in 2013, after a new government was elected in Norway, it was reported on that many were hopeful the new government "will stem the tide of antisemitism".[10]

  1. ^ Hultgreen, Gunnar (December 8, 2001). "Jens varslet ikke eieren" [Jens didn't notify the owner]. Dagbladet. p. 6. Archived from the original on November 20, 2010. Retrieved November 20, 2010. 
  2. ^ Lars Barth-Heyerdahl. "Stoltenberg: – Uakseptabelt av Israel: Den norske regjeringen fordømmer bordingen av skip med nødhjelp på vei til Gaza" [Stoltenberg: - Unacceptable of Israel: The Norwegian government condemns board of the ship with the aid headed to Gaza] (in Norwegian). TV2. Archived from the original on 8 April 2014. 
  3. ^ "Stoltenberg fordømmer Israel". Aftenbladet. 14 July 2006. Archived from the original on 8 April 2014. 
  4. ^ "Stoltenberg hyller norske Gaza-leger" [Stoltenberg shelves Norwegian Gaza doctors]. Verdens Gang. Archived from the original on 8 April 2014. 
  5. ^ "Letter to: Mr. Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister, Norway". SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTRE. Retrieved 18 April 2014. 
  6. ^ "The changing of the guard" (PDF). Jewish Tribune. Retrieved 18 April 2014. 
  7. ^ "Time to impose sanctions on Scandinavia?". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 11 April 2014. 
  8. ^ "ADL Troubled By Norwegian Prime Minister's Participation In May Day Event Featuring "Vile" Anti-Israel Slogans". ADL. Retrieved 15 April 2014. 
  9. ^ Ya'ar, Chana (3 May 2012). "ADL Slams Norwegian PM Over May Day Anti-Zionism". Arutz 7. Archived from the original on 8 May 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2014. 
  10. ^ F. Barken, Jeffrey (September 22, 2013). "Will Norway’s new government stem tide of anti-Semitism?". Archived from the original on 8 April 2014. Retrieved 5 April 2014. 
Absolutely unacceptable. Every politician who criticises Israeli policy or practice is attacked by the Israeli right wing as an antisemite, whether using that word explicitly or merely inviting the reader to supply it. It is a tactic that Wikipedia must not buy into. Here we even see the Israeli settler mouthpiece Arutz Sheva quoted, as if their highly predictable rants are notable commentary. Get a grip, folks. If the Israeli government or spokesperson has replied to Stoltenberg's criticism, some limited coverage of that might be appropriate. This nonsense from random nobodies chosen on account of their opinion is not. Zerotalk 12:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Now, I discussed on the other discussion board, and realized that JPost article was taken from opinion section, and therefore can not be included. The rest though are quite reliable even if they are extremist. As far as secondary sources go, I gave a plethora of secondary sources above: Fox News, CNN, BBC, and all of them were rejected because @Bjerrebæk: believes that Fox News for example is far right. O.K. it is, so? It is still used on articles relating to George W. Bush and his cabinet, let alone that its being used on all republican-related articles. Give me a link to an English source that you believe is a reliable source, because right now I see that you want to use Norwegian source over foreign ones, that way it is slanted to Norwegian view, not global.--Mishae (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Where did you give that "plethora of secondary sources above: Fox News, CNN, BBC" ....all telling us that Stoltenberg is an anti-semite?? And doesn´t it concern you that this "tide of antisemitism [in Norway]" is only noticed in Jerusalem, and not by the Jewish community in Norway? Do you think the Jews of Norway are so terrified of being killed/jailed/tortured/gassed (or shot by Breivik) these days that they don´t dare to speak their minds?? Just curious....Huldra (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
No, you miss understood me, I meant the above sources in general, no specifically related to this article. When I mentioned to user Bjerrebæk that Fox News is as far right as FrontPage Magazine, he responded that because Fox News is far right, it shouldn't be used in this article either. But the thing is is that it is used in many republican-related articles, meaning that consensus have nothing against Fox News. Also, consensus doesn't have anything against the use of JPost since it is used on many articles related to Israeli leaders. Sure, in a way how it is presented here, the article in JPost was taken from an opinion section. Now, I don't see it in other sources like FrontPage Magazine, ADL and (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For example this article from Fox News is an RS, right? But user Bjerrebæk objects to any Fox News RS's in the current article, which begin to confuse me. Like, according to the RS policy, we are allowed to use media for RS, which includes far right ones such as Fox News. I personally care less. But RS is RS and Fox News is one of them so user Bjerrebæk shouldn't be objectional, otherwise we will have only Norwegian sources for Norwegian BLP and so on.--Mishae (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Mishae; I notice that the FrontPage Magazine article is written by the blogger Fjordman. He is not a reliable source in any form and way for Wikipedia articles (expect as source for his own views). If you don't understand why, you just have to read more about him (like his Wikipedia bio). As for FoxNews; they are conservative and accused of biased reporting, but they are not by any informed definition far right. Iselilja (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If they are accused of biased reporting then why Wikipedia use them as RS sometimes for various republican representatives? Another question, if Fjordman is not a reliable source then perhaps Luke Harding from The Guardian is not reliable source either. Or are you implying that if an editor uses pseudonym than he is not notable (like, full name must be shown)? If so, why Wikipedia thinks that a specific blogger is notable? There are tons of them, and there will be more in the future...--Mishae (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Pluto2012, it's surprising that after your many years on Wikipedia, you're saying that all of these sources are primary ones - they are clearly not - there are both primary([15]) and secondary sources here. Now that it's clear WP:PSTS is established, you and 'Zero' claim it's of undue weight because, according to you, everyone who criticizes Israel is called an anti-semite. It's obvious that your own POV plays an account on the matter as you and others blindly dismiss every single Jewish/Israel news source, besides Haaretz of course. Huldra, not all of these sources (Ynet, Jpost, Arutz Sheva, JNS, FrontPage magazine) are "telling us that Stoltenberg is an anti-semite". What they do is they criticize Stoltenberg over one thing or another, but you're still saying that those articles aren't noteworthy enough to be given a mention, and that is plain bias. Their mere views are notable and could be written as "according to Jpost/Jpost's writer X, Stoltenberg is/should've," etc. Iselilja, it's evident that you (and others) aren't willing to follow basic guidelines, using the excuse that the sources are right-wing. Excuse me but what are you talking about? Every news website out there has been "accused of biased reporting", it's pathetic to use this as an excuse for all this censorship. If an Haaretz article were to report a positive view of Stoltenberg, you'd never oppose using it, even though Haaretz has been harshly accused of all kinds of different things I'll not get into now. Mishae, you make good and relevant points, but apparently objectivity is hard to find in this article. Yambaram (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears I didn't make myself fully clear. The kind of sources I am completely against are far right sources like Fjordman. That's totally out of question. I agree with you that both Fox News and Jerusalem Post can be used as sources on Wikipedia, with some care. The one article JP article I have seen suggested as source is written by Gerstenfeld. Like I said above, I simply don't think he is important enough to merit inclusion in this article. I don't think there are any Fox News article that has been suggested as source, so here we are only talking theoretically. What might merit inclusion in the article, is a mention of the fact that Norway's contact with Hamas under the Stoltenberg cabinet has been controversial (but this is a somewhat complicate diplomatic issue; so it's not the easiest thing to present in an adequate way, and we should have mainstream sources, not criticism from minor persons or groups). Iselilja (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mishae is distorting my comments and presenting a plain strawman above. I have not objected to any Fox News sources in this article at all, on the contrary I have, when asked specifically about Fox News by Mishae, pointed out that Fox News is not an extremist/fringe source, quite unlike Frontpage Magazine, a source widely regarded as an extremist and fringe publication. Describing Fox News as a rather tabloid source that I would not personally spend much time arguing in favour of using because there are usually better sources around, is not the same as objecting to the permissibility of the source, and I have never objected to the inclusion of any Fox News source, and it was quite clear from the discussion that my main point, when asked by Mishae about Fox News, was that it not comparable to extremist publications. I think there is really no purpose in having a discussion with a user who twists other users' comments in such a dishonest way. Bjerrebæk (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Bjerrebæk and Iselilja you are giving way too much attention to that Fox News discussion you had with Mishae, which is almost irrelevant at all to the topic. Given your concerns about Gerstenfeld, I ommitted the articles he wrote and they won't be used, and considering the fact that you (rightly) have no objection for some of the other sources discussed above, I have now added some information to the article. Feel fee to edit the revised compromised version. Thanks Yambaram (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The material is still undue and should not be included without prior consensus. It all boils down to just a handful of right-wing individuals/organizations making claims based on (as has been pointed out, eg. by the Norwegian Jewish community) "information" from two individuals who were expelled from the Norwegian Jewish community ten years ago because of their extremism and their association with far right causes/organizations. At the very most, this campaign against Stoltenberg/Norway by a few individuals merits a one-sentence mention of criticism from right-wing or far right groups. Stoltenberg's foreign policies are completely uncontroversial in Norway and not in any way different from those of the Conservative Party, his Labour Party and the Conservatives agree almost 100% on foreign policy issues. Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What? Did you look at the information here in this version? The Anti-Defamation League is not a right-wing organization, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is not a right wing organization, and Sam Brownback is not a right-winger. And even if the other news serivces you see as "right wing" were really so, they still have undisputed significance. So excuse me but what are you talking about? Also, their statements are independent and have nothing to do with these "two individuals" you just brought up. It doesn't matter if Stoltenberg's foreign policies are uncontroversial in Norway, there's notable criticism from reliable sources about him, so you have no good reason to justify this censorship. As I said, even if some of these sources are right wing, which is highly disputed, since when does Wikipedia restict itself only to left wing sources? I ask others to look at that version too. Yambaram (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have added this content to the article as there is no opposition to it in over a week. Yambaram (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
People do not need to repeat their opposition according to your schedule. It is obvious from the discussion above that you do not have consensus for your version. You can't just wait a week and claim that there is no opposition. It would be just as logical to claim that in a whole week nobody came here to support you. Zerotalk 12:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The article by Jeffrey F. Barken/ is really vile and conspiratorial. --torstein (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If you took the time to read the discussion above and to look at that edit, Zero, you would see that the information I added to the article after a week of waiting was revised in accordance with the discussion here. I have removed all the sources that met any objection, and minimized the coverage of others. Torstein, if you think that the JNS source is problematic, then just remove it, I'm tired of arguing about this - let's be serious and stop trying to prevent any criticism, what's the issue now? Can someone offer their suggestion maybe instead of saying no all the time please? Yambaram (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Zero that the consensus is against the content that you want to add, and I agree with that consensus. It is highly misleading to suggest that Jens Stoltenberg, and/or his government was anti-semitic. It is a very serious charge to put in a BLP, and the evidence provided for it is deeply skewed. It is correct that Stoltenberg has been critical of Israeli policies, and that there are calls in Norway, especially from the left, to boycott Israel. (The latter of which I consider to be a deeply misguided stance.) Note that criticism of Israeli policies must be clearly distinguished from a hatred of Jewish people in order to have a meaningful discussion. Criticism of Iran's human rights record doesn't make a person an islamophobe either.
Concerning the JNS source, the paragraph that troubles me deepest of all is the seventh: "Anders Behring Breivik’s infamous 2011 terrorist attack confirmed the worst regarding intolerance in Norwegian society. Following the mass shooting at a Worker’s Youth League camp that left 69 people dead, the facility was discovered to house vicious anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. Teenagers participating in the program prior to the attack were routinely subjected to an indoctrinating hate campaign." Apparently, the worst intolerance that took place on Utøya that summer in 2011 was not that 69 innocent people, mostly children, were murdered for their political beliefs. It was that these children had been subjected to what the article calls an indoctrinating hate campaign. This is crazy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Global Commission for the Economy and Climate[edit]

It seems that Stoltenberg is clearly a member of this commission. Is there a reason not to mention this fact? I am asking because mention of his membership in the Commission has been deleted several times from the article. That the Commission does not have a Wikipedia article cannot be a reason not to include it here; this is not a standard for notability. HGilbert (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The reason it was removed may have be that it lacked an independent reliable source, but such sources are not hard to find. I believe the commission may be notable as well.(One of the IPs seems to have been a possible sock harassing another Wikipedian, so it may have been removed for that reason also). Iselilja (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Lukeno94 -- Please explain your justification for excluding this here before removing it. HGilbert (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Reverting an edit by a block-evading sock that is here simply just to harass a particular user. No comment on the content whatsoever; I was merely hitting rollback on every single edit that was obviously a reversion of that user. If you'd checked my editing history and the IP's before questioning, you'd have worked it out. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • OK; that makes sense. Thanks for explaining. HGilbert (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard}}[edit]

The BLP noticeboard states that when the subject has departed from the noticeboard, the placer of the notice is supposed to take it off the subject's page. Whoever you were, may I suggest that you comply with the requirement. Ta. - (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right. My fault. Removed it now. Thanks. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)